Let's let the man explain his policy before we criticize him!
.
__________________ LIBERAL FILTH: Almost exclusively politicians and sycophants, these are the animals who wish to rule by decree, by judicial fiat, against the clear wishes of the populace. Includes such groups as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.
Filth are in favor of late-term abortion on demand, despise free speech, work to overturn child molester laws, are big fans of genetic engineering, despise Christians, want to outlaw gun ownership, etc.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
"The folks" at Gitmo? Christ, somebody just fucking shoot me now.
Coming soon to a civilian courtroom blocks from Ground Zero: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other al Qaeda planners of 9/11. Be sure to get your tickets early, and don't forget to watch out for the truck-bomb barricades and rooftop snipers.
What a lying sack of crap! Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. President Obama and Eric Holder have honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime. They ARE NOT entitled to legal protections as those enjoyed by the citizens of this country!
Wonder if they had their Miranda Rights read to them? If it is proven in Federal Court that his confessions were gathered by illicit means, it would render them inadmissible in court. Won't THAT be just swell.
I have to take a pill and go to bed. lol
Last edited by put it out there baby : 11-16-2009 at 05:56 AM.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
I would like to formally apoligize to Representative Joe Wilson for condemning his remark to the President. At the time I thought he was out of order. I take it all back. Obama is a liar and deserves to be called out for it.
This is the new level of stupidity from the people's monkey, living proof that America has not only gone to hell but far past it mentally.
This trial will faulter, it has already faultered. It has given Islamo-fascism a free forum and it ensures no justice. Obama has spat on the victims and he has spat on this country.
This government has gone mad and needs to be cleansed of vermin by the vote or by force.
Meanwhile our troops continue to die in a war these traitors in D.C. refuse to fight, have no heart to win and no brains to lead. Putting the bull shit ***** trip of health care before the lives of our soldiers and the preservation of our national treasury is madness in need of a remedy.
This is the new level of stupidity from the people's monkey, living proof that America has not only gone to hell but far past it mentally.
This trial will faulter, it has already faultered. It has given Islamo-fascism a free forum and it ensures no justice. Obama has spat on the victims and he has spat on this country.
This government has gone mad and needs to be cleansed of vermin by the vote or by force.
Meanwhile our troops continue to die in a war these traitors in D.C. refuse to fight, have no heart to win and no brains to lead. Putting the bull shit ***** trip of health care before the lives of our soldiers and the preservation of our national treasury is madness in need of a remedy.
This government should be over thrown.
Yay!
danrush for President!!
Solve the problems of the US by halving the population!
START MORE WARS? YES WE CAN!
.
__________________
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." - Alexander Pope - 1709.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by put it out there baby
"The folks" at Gitmo? Christ, somebody just fucking shoot me now.
Coming soon to a civilian courtroom blocks from Ground Zero: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other al Qaeda planners of 9/11. Be sure to get your tickets early, and don't forget to watch out for the truck-bomb barricades and rooftop snipers.
What a lying sack of crap! Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. President Obama and Eric Holder have honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime. They ARE NOT not entitled to legal protections as those enjoyed by the citizens of this country!
Wonder if they had their Miranda Rights read to them? If it is proven in Federal Court that his confessions were gathered by illicit means, it would render them inadmissible in court. Won't THAT be just swell.
I have to take a pill and go to bed. lol
Excellent post, and I'd suggest a stiff Captain Morgans to wash that pill down. Nice cigar as well, Captains and unsweet iced tea my current favorite.
__________________
I need a lil emblem signifying the many shot down liberal arguments to paste to my Republican fighter-bomber, any suggestions?,,or
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
These fucking brain-dead right-wing Monkeys want to have their bananas and eat them too on this issue, just like every other one.
When they get on TV, they start gibbering about how these "terrorists" are not common criminals. According to Monkeys, they're actually warriors - the term Giuliani used yesterday on one of the right-wing propaganda interview shows - like all of them.
Therefore, even though they committed their crimes on US soil, they're not entitled to due process in a US Court since this is under the the purview of the Military Commissions Act.
But, if they're warriors and are persecuting a war against us, what makes them any different than the US Pilots who dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an act of war, thereby killing hundreds of thousands of civilians?
If any of the people who bombed Japan and Dresden had been captured, we would have demanded their release at the cessation of hostilities.
Here's the difference and it's always the same with these fucking Monkey twits: One standard for us and our pals, another for everyone else.
In fact, they are warriors. They are at war. We declared war on them in 1948 when we recognized the "state" of Israel and have been at war with them ever since. Your friendly bought and paid for Zionist coddling politician just never bothered to tell you.
And they don't deserve to be reduced to the level of common criminals.
Gotta go with the Monkeys on this one...but not for the same "reasons"
.
.
__________________ "We hate health care and niggers!"
Pastor Ted Sez: "I enjoy the taste of meth on a man's penis."
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by dchristie : 11-16-2009 at 05:50 AM.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
The evidentiary record "is surprisingly bare,"
No shit, Colleen, you can return to countless battles across this nation's history, detainees don't have evidence the isn't "bare." Soldiers don't hang around and collect evidence nor should they be.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell
I would like to formally apoligize to Representative Joe Wilson for condemning his remark to the President. At the time I thought he was out of order. I take it all back. Obama is a liar and deserves to be called out for it.
Well that follows, doesn't it?
Let's reduce joint sessions of Congress during a presidential address - which the whole world watches - to the level of "decorum" we see displayed by screaming ugly mobs and infantile jeering fanatical red neck thugs running amok at Town Hall riots.
And then lets try to pretend that we are World Leaders and that our institutions are to be respected. Of course, that's only to be upheld when some GOP Criminal is in the Whitehouse trampling the Constitution.
Geez.. What a pack of imbeciles. Frightening.
.
__________________ "We hate health care and niggers!"
Pastor Ted Sez: "I enjoy the taste of meth on a man's penis."
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by dchristie : 11-16-2009 at 07:32 AM.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchristie
Well that follows, doesn't it?
Let's reduce joint sessions of Congress during a presidential address - which the whole world watches - to the level of "decorum" we see displayed by screaming ugly mobs and infantile jeering fanatics and thugs running amok at Town Hall riots.
And then lets try to pretend that we are World Leaders and that our institutions are to be respected. Of course, that's only when some GOP Criminal is in the Whitehouse trampling the Constitution.
Geez.. What a pack of imbeciles. Frightening.
.
To some extent I do agree with you on this. America has over the last 15 to 20 years or so, lost the respect of the world and we have no one but ourselves to blame for it. We placed our faith in those that we elected and then failed to keep a careful watch on them. As the old saying goes, you are going to get exactly what you paid for. Well, were sure getting it now.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by put it out there baby
"The folks" at Gitmo? Christ, somebody just fucking shoot me now.
Coming soon to a civilian courtroom blocks from Ground Zero: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other al Qaeda planners of 9/11. Be sure to get your tickets early, and don't forget to watch out for the truck-bomb barricades and rooftop snipers.
What a lying sack of crap! Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. President Obama and Eric Holder have honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime. They ARE NOT entitled to legal protections as those enjoyed by the citizens of this country!
Wonder if they had their Miranda Rights read to them? If it is proven in Federal Court that his confessions were gathered by illicit means, it would render them inadmissible in court. Won't THAT be just swell.
I have to take a pill and go to bed. lol
Yeah but haven't you heard? GITMO is filled with farmers and Taxi Drivers, you know because the big bad USA just went over there and decided to pluck these people instead of real terrorists.
I have to hand it to these terrorists though, they know the main weakness of the US is in its media. Yell at the top of your lunges! "Hey!! I was just tending my sheep and a long came a US Soldier and took me away!!!"
Now... Put that in the New York Times and it wont matter that the US denies it, because, you know, we are liars... But this farmers word is gold! Poor fella, what are we doing over there!!!!???
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwywf
Excellent post, and I'd suggest a stiff Captain Morgans to wash that pill down. Nice cigar as well, Captains and unsweet iced tea my current favorite.
I don't drink. And the pill I took was actually a 600 mg. Motrin for my arthritic joints. I don't smoke cigars either.
The decision to try the terrorists in a US Federal Court, has raised legal, political and ethical questions, including what kind of evidence will be used against men whom the U.S. government subjected to brutal interrogation methods. Can you not see the Defense running with this? In the case of professed plot mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the CIA has acknowledged using a simulated drowning technique known as *****boarding, which many legal experts have said amounts to torture.
The trial almost certainly would turn into a propaganda forum for the accused terrorists. We hold our trials in the open, and that gives defendants an opportunity to spew propaganda. They will try to put the U.S. government on trial.They will now have a world wide, very public, soapbox to exhort sympathizers to join in their jihad, or holy war, against the United States.
Holding the terrorism trials in civilian court could result in acquittals, mistrials or shorter sentences.
Lawyers for the 9/11 conspirators said that they had no comment on how the men would plead once they were charged by federal prosecutors, evn though they ave already admitted guilt and asked to be executed.
Please spare us talk of the "rule of law." If that was the primary consideration, the U.S. already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal "enemy combatants" captured since 9/11.
Before the Obama Administration stopped all proceedings earlier this year pending yesterday's decision, the tribunals at Gitmo had earned a reputation for fairness and independence.
Eric Holder acknowledged their worth himself by announcing that the Guantanamo detainee who allegedly planned the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off Yemen and four others would face military commission trials. (The Pentagon must now find a locale other than the multimillion-dollar, state-of-the-art facility at Gitmo for its tribunal.)
Holder seemed to suggest that the Cole bombers struck a military target overseas and thus are a good fit for a military trial, while KSM and comrades hit the U.S. and murdered civilians and thus deserve a U.S. civilian trial. WTH?? But this entirely misunderstands that both groups are unlawful enemy combatants who are accused of war crimes, whatever their targets.Holder's justification betrays not a legal consistency but a fundamentally political judgment that he can make as he sees fit, apparently!
Holder expressed confidence that KSM and the rest will be convicted, (oh please, spare me) BUT it is telling that he also delayed filing formal charges. Will KSM be formally charged with the 9/11 murders, or merely with "material support" for terrorism or some lesser offense?The specific charges may depend on how much evidence is admissable in a civilian courtroom.
The MCA allowed for the reality that much of the evidence against enemy combatants may be classified, and it allowed for some hearsay evidence on grounds that they have been picked up on a battlefield, not in Brooklyn. There is no CSI: Kandahar. A civilian court has far tighter rules of evidence.
The real possibility exists that one or more of these detainees could be acquitted on procedural grounds, which would be a travesty of justice.
One certain outcome is that an open civilian trial will provide valuable information to terrorists across the world about American methods and intelligence. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissable, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction.
Osama bin Laden learned a lot from the 1995 prosecution in New York of the "blind cleric" Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for the first World Trade Center attack. His main tip was that the U.S. considered bin Laden a terrorist co-conspirator, leading him to abandon his hideout in Sudan for Afghanistan.
Terrorists also love a big stage, and none come bigger than New York. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, made his civilian trial a spectacle. Not even the best judge can entirely stop KSM and others from doing the same. And Mr. Holder has invited grave and needless security risks by tempting jihadists the world over to strike Manhattan while the trial is in session.
There's something called the Classified Procedures Information Act, CIPA, which limits the public disclosure of classified information. But defendants get access to this sort of information. That's something that's going to be very difficult to manage and very important in this case.
How much access will the defense attorneys have to classified information? Will they be allowed to put it out in public? How damaging could that be to U.S. national security if sources and methods of al Qaeda, for example, are exposed?
What the hell is our government thinking? Are they thinking? What really is the motivation behind this decision?
What about the argument that they can't get a fair trial in New York, which, certainly, likely their attorneys would argue?
EVERYBODY in this country knows something about 9/11. EVERYONE in this country was devestated, affected,horiified and lost a piece of thier security and mourned for the victims of 9/11 and their familees. EVERYONE! This is NOT unique to New York. So, if you do close voir dire, if you really examine the juries, make sure they have no direct connections to victims of the attack, how will that be accepted as ground for a fair trial by the terrorists attorneys to begin with, when everyone watched the horror of (/11 on the news for months and months? How many millions showed up at various Memorials which were held in virtually every city in the country? How many millions donated monies to all the various funds which were set up? How can you possibly find a non tainted jury pool?
The governement, i.e. the TAXPAYERS, which includes all the victims's families, loved ones, relatives, friends and co-workers will be paying for the Defense attorneys, the court fees and the entire cost of this litigation!
This does not included the cost of security alone which will certainly cost many millions of follars! Again, funded by the taxpayers ultimately.
The pre-trial proceedings no doubt could last a year or more! The trialcould drag out how many years? Is this swift justice by ay standards?
What happens to the evidence? What happens to the statements that he made? Can you turn over in discovery material highly classified information that will undoubtedly come up in this trial to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is one of the most dangerous people in the world? What risk do you take to national security to disclose this information?
Wat the hell is the President thinking when "risk" that he is taking with all of this and with his reasoning that the people in Nazi Germany who murdered and slaughtered people are not different from people who came here and slaughtered people! WTF???
What are the standards here? Why have the *****s become so muddied?
Is there not a really, really clear distinction between a foreign national who comes to these shores and commits a terrorist act, kills and/or helps to kill 3,000 people?? That seems like a war criminal who deserves a military tribunal, to be treated like a war criminal, versus a U.S. citizen who commits a crime of one sort or another, who, of course, ought to be tried in U.S. courts. (i.e. Timothy McVeigh)
"What the Obama administration is telling us loud and clear is that both in substance and reality, the war on terror, from their point of view, is over. We're no longer going to treat these people as if this was an act of war," said former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Why??? Why??? Why??? Can someone please explain and reasonably and rationally and even legally, justify this to me??? What is it that I don't undestand? What am I wrong about? What am I missing??? I would like to seriously know. I cannot, for the life of me, wrap my mind around this repulsive, appalling descision.
Last edited by put it out there baby : 11-16-2009 at 08:01 AM.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by put it out there baby
I don't drink. And the pill I took was actually a 600 mg. Motrin for my arthritic joints. I don't smoke cigars either.
Why??? Why??? Why??? Can someone please explain and reasonably and rationally and even legally, justify this to me??? What is it that I don't undestand? What am I wrong about? What am I missing??? I would like to seriously know. I cannot, for the life of me, wrap my mind around this repulsive, appalling descision.
I have searched the internet wide and far looking for the answer. I honestly can't find a reasonable and rational explanation for this other than this one.
Speaking at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania last year during the campaign, Barack Obama addressed the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision granting Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their confinement through habeas corpus proceedings in federal court. Obama asserted that the "principle of habeas corpus, that a state can't just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process -- that's the essence of who we are." He explained:
I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.
John Hinderaker and I derived some precepts for trial lawyers from the Nuremberg trial in "Lessons from the cross-examination of Hermann Goering." In the course of researching that article I was reminded that the Nuremberg trial was conducted before a military commission composed of representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. The most prominent surviving Nazi leaders were brought for trial before the Nuremberg tribunal in late 1945. Winston Churchill had proposed, not unreasonably, that they be summarily shot. The victorious allies nevertheless subsequently agreed that they would be brought before a military commission to be convened pursuant to the London Agreement of August 8, 1945.
In the Boumediene case, the Supreme Court disapproved of the system of military commissions Congress had adopted at the Supreme Court's urging. Obama to the contrary notwithstanding, the Nuremberg defendants' "day in court" occurred before the kind of tribunal the Supreme Court found constitutionally inadequate in Boumediene.
The Nazi war criminals were given no access to American courts. Their rights were governed by the charter annexed to the London Agreement. Here is the fair trial provision of the charter:
In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:
(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial.
(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.
(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.
(d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.
(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.
The charter provision on the appeal rights of the Nuremberg defendants was even shorter and sweeter. There were no appeal rights. Article 26 provided: "The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review."
In short, the procedural protections afforded the Guantanamo detainees under the statute before the Supreme Court in Boumediene substantially exceeded those accorded the Nuremberg defendants. Obama's unfavorable comparison of the legal treatment of the Guantanamo detainees with that of the Nuremberg defendants suggests that he did not know what he was talking about.
The revised system of military commissions now applicable to the Guantanamo detainees affords Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. -- the perpetrators of 9/11 -- all the protections to which American law entitles them. Now Obama -- to whom the decision must be attributable, regardless of the pretense that the buck stops with Eric Holder -- has chosen to bring KSM et al. to federal court in New York for a civilian trial as though he and his colleagues were common criminals. Why? Doing so carries with it certain necessary consequences and obvious risks that have already been the subject of informed comment:
1. Obama confuses the commission of crimes with acts of war. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon constituted acts of war.
2. Obama cloaks KSM et al. with all the constitutional protections to which American citizens are entitled under the United States Constitution.
3. Obama affords KSM et al. a public forum for the waging of their war by other means.
4. Those who apprehended and detained KSM et al. treated them as enemy combatants from whom valuable intelligence was sought and received. Trying them in federal court creates otherwise unnecessary issues regarding the admissibility of this evidence and provides them another avenue of attack on those defending the United states against them.
5. The treatment of evidence in connection with the trial raises a serious threat that national security will be compromised.
6. The trial of KSM et al. in New York by itself raises severe security risks.
Given the availability of military commissions to try KSM et al., one asks why Obama has chosen to bring them to trial in federal court in New York. One searches Saturday's Washington Post story on the decision in vain for an explanation. No consideration of justice, history or tradition weighs in favor of treating KSM et al. as criminal defendants. Against the predictable negative risks and negative consequences, advocates of Obama's decision offer airy considerations of public relations. It is hard to take any professed rationale of a civilian trial seriously. Judging Obama's treatment of KSM et al. by its predictable effects rather than its apparent intentions, one arrives at a harsh conclusion. If Obama sought to subvert fundamental American institutions or to confuse the understanding of the American people -- upon both of which America's future depends -- he would proceed as announced. JOHN adds: On our radio show yesterday, Andy McCarthy proposed an explanation that amplifies on Scott's last paragraph. He suggested that the Obama administration views KSM et al. as its allies (my paraphrase) in its war against the Bush administration. Obama expects them to make their treatment by the Bush administration, real and imagined, the centerpiece of their defense, with the possible result that Bush, Cheney, and others may be indicted as war criminals by European countries or international courts, thereby satisfying the far left of the Democratic Party, which Obama represents. I'll post a podcast of the interview when it's available.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell
The revised system of military commissions now applicable to the Guantanamo detainees affords Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. -- the perpetrators of 9/11 -- all the protections to which American law entitles them. Now Obama -- to whom the decision must be attributable, regardless of the pretense that the buck stops with Eric Holder -- has chosen to bring KSM et al. to federal court in New York for a civilian trial as though he and his colleagues were common criminals. Why?
It's - alleged - perpetrators.
Clearly, you're not even capable of grasping the most fundamental principles at the core of this issue.
.
__________________ "We hate health care and niggers!"
Pastor Ted Sez: "I enjoy the taste of meth on a man's penis."
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchristie
It's - alleged - perpetrators.
Clearly, you're not even capable of grasping the most fundamental principles at the core of this issue.
.
The quote is not mine. I clearly sourced it.
You are correct though. I clearly don't understand why this case must be handled in a civilian court rather than military court. If you have a reasonable, rational, or legal argument for why it must, I sincerely would love to hear it.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell
I have searched the internet wide and far looking for the answer. I honestly can't find a reasonable and rational explanation for this other than this one.
Speaking at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania last year during the campaign, Barack Obama addressed the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision granting Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their confinement through habeas corpus proceedings in federal court. Obama asserted that the "principle of habeas corpus, that a state can't just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process -- that's the essence of who we are." He explained:
I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.
John Hinderaker and I derived some precepts for trial lawyers from the Nuremberg trial in "Lessons from the cross-examination of Hermann Goering." In the course of researching that article I was reminded that the Nuremberg trial was conducted before a military commission composed of representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. The most prominent surviving Nazi leaders were brought for trial before the Nuremberg tribunal in late 1945. Winston Churchill had proposed, not unreasonably, that they be summarily shot. The victorious allies nevertheless subsequently agreed that they would be brought before a military commission to be convened pursuant to the London Agreement of August 8, 1945.
In the Boumediene case, the Supreme Court disapproved of the system of military commissions Congress had adopted at the Supreme Court's urging. Obama to the contrary notwithstanding, the Nuremberg defendants' "day in court" occurred before the kind of tribunal the Supreme Court found constitutionally inadequate in Boumediene.
The Nazi war criminals were given no access to American courts. Their rights were governed by the charter annexed to the London Agreement. Here is the fair trial provision of the charter:
In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:
(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial.
(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.
(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.
(d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.
(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.
The charter provision on the appeal rights of the Nuremberg defendants was even shorter and sweeter. There were no appeal rights. Article 26 provided: "The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review."
In short, the procedural protections afforded the Guantanamo detainees under the statute before the Supreme Court in Boumediene substantially exceeded those accorded the Nuremberg defendants. Obama's unfavorable comparison of the legal treatment of the Guantanamo detainees with that of the Nuremberg defendants suggests that he did not know what he was talking about.
The revised system of military commissions now applicable to the Guantanamo detainees affords Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. -- the perpetrators of 9/11 -- all the protections to which American law entitles them. Now Obama -- to whom the decision must be attributable, regardless of the pretense that the buck stops with Eric Holder -- has chosen to bring KSM et al. to federal court in New York for a civilian trial as though he and his colleagues were common criminals. Why? Doing so carries with it certain necessary consequences and obvious risks that have already been the subject of informed comment:
1. Obama confuses the commission of crimes with acts of war. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon constituted acts of war.
2. Obama cloaks KSM et al. with all the constitutional protections to which American citizens are entitled under the United States Constitution.
3. Obama affords KSM et al. a public forum for the waging of their war by other means.
4. Those who apprehended and detained KSM et al. treated them as enemy combatants from whom valuable intelligence was sought and received. Trying them in federal court creates otherwise unnecessary issues regarding the admissibility of this evidence and provides them another avenue of attack on those defending the United states against them.
5. The treatment of evidence in connection with the trial raises a serious threat that national security will be compromised.
6. The trial of KSM et al. in New York by itself raises severe security risks.
Given the availability of military commissions to try KSM et al., one asks why Obama has chosen to bring them to trial in federal court in New York. One searches Saturday's Washington Post story on the decision in vain for an explanation. No consideration of justice, history or tradition weighs in favor of treating KSM et al. as criminal defendants. Against the predictable negative risks and negative consequences, advocates of Obama's decision offer airy considerations of public relations. It is hard to take any professed rationale of a civilian trial seriously. Judging Obama's treatment of KSM et al. by its predictable effects rather than its apparent intentions, one arrives at a harsh conclusion. If Obama sought to subvert fundamental American institutions or to confuse the understanding of the American people -- upon both of which America's future depends -- he would proceed as announced. JOHN adds: On our radio show yesterday, Andy McCarthy proposed an explanation that amplifies on Scott's last paragraph. He suggested that the Obama administration views KSM et al. as its allies (my paraphrase) in its war against the Bush administration. Obama expects them to make their treatment by the Bush administration, real and imagined, the centerpiece of their defense, with the possible result that Bush, Cheney, and others may be indicted as war criminals by European countries or international courts, thereby satisfying the far left of the Democratic Party, which Obama represents. I'll post a podcast of the interview when it's available.
As with every single decision he has made since taking office, his motivations here are clear:
He wants to diminish us in every way he can.
He would like to make this about '*****boarding' if possible, if only to buy some more time to blame Bush for his own glaring failures.
He wants to demonstrate, yet again, to the monsters of the world-- particularly the islamic monsters-- that he stands with them...even while he bows to them.
He wants to inflict this pain on the American people, and especially New Yorkers, to show them that he CAN:
"Really? Crying for your loved ones? FUCK YOU. Whatcha gonna do now?"
He is beyond the pale, less than human, a creature d*****ing, unraveling into a full-blown enemy of the free world.
.
.
__________________ LIBERAL FILTH: Almost exclusively politicians and sycophants, these are the animals who wish to rule by decree, by judicial fiat, against the clear wishes of the populace. Includes such groups as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.
Filth are in favor of late-term abortion on demand, despise free speech, work to overturn child molester laws, are big fans of genetic engineering, despise Christians, want to outlaw gun ownership, etc.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone
As with every single decision he has made since taking office, his motivations here are clear:
He wants to diminish us in every way he can.
He would like to make this about '*****boarding' if possible, if only to buy some more time to blame Bush for his own glaring failures.
He wants to demonstrate, yet again, to the monsters of the world-- particularly the islamic monsters-- that he stands with them...even while he bows to them.
He wants to inflict this pain on the American people, and especially New Yorkers, to show them that he CAN:
"Really? Crying for your loved ones? FUCK YOU. Whatcha gonna do now?"
He is beyond the pale, less than human, a creature d*****ing, unraveling into a full-blown enemy of the free world.
.
.
I still think that obama will try to get them off of the hook by just deporting them or giving them a pardon.
And if he does then he will lose every supporter he has left, which aren't many today.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone
As with every single decision he has made since taking office, his motivations here are clear:
He wants to diminish us in every way he can.
He would like to make this about '*****boarding' if possible, if only to buy some more time to blame Bush for his own glaring failures.
He wants to demonstrate, yet again, to the monsters of the world-- particularly the islamic monsters-- that he stands with them...even while he bows to them.
He wants to inflict this pain on the American people, and especially New Yorkers, to show them that he CAN:
"Really? Crying for your loved ones? FUCK YOU. Whatcha gonna do now?"
He is beyond the pale, less than human, a creature d*****ing, unraveling into a full-blown enemy of the free world.
.
.
Do you think it was the acid that did this to you?
.
.
__________________ "We hate health care and niggers!"
Pastor Ted Sez: "I enjoy the taste of meth on a man's penis."
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by dchristie : 11-16-2009 at 03:11 PM.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell
The quote is not mine. I clearly sourced it.
You are correct though. I clearly don't understand why this case must be handled in a civilian court rather than military court. If you have a reasonable, rational, or legal argument for why it must, I sincerely would love to hear it.
What is it you're afraid of?
Don't the American People have the right to hear what motivated the alleged masterminds of 911?
Even the Nazis had their day in open court where all the World could judge the testimony for themselves.
Are you afraid that if all the evidence is heard, you may not like what you hear?
Why are you so eager to abrogate The American People's right to be the arbiters of justice.
Why are you so eager to surrender to a military tribunal The American People's right to judge these individuals for themselves?
.
.
__________________ "We hate health care and niggers!"
Pastor Ted Sez: "I enjoy the taste of meth on a man's penis."
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Timer
With all due respect DC. one question if I may. Do you condone or condemn what they did.
Also, does he see their actions as somehow justifiable? Is that what he is hinting at here? I would like to know that myself.
I thought he had said this today:
"And they don't deserve to be reduced to the level of common criminals.
Gotta go with the Monkeys on this one...but not for the same "reasons""
I hope this is not going to be a sideways journey about Israel or Bush or God knows what. I would hope we could stick to the matter at hand. Perhaps not. Maybe I am being viewed now as one of the "Monkeys". Well hell, I have certainly been called worse in my years on this planet. lol
Are there are provisions within the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of enemy combatants that state a "competent tribunal" must determine their lawful status??
Did Al Qaeda and company feel they were at war with the United States, or did they come here just to commit a crime?
What exactly changes if we declare this an act of war or an act of criminal violence? According to the War *****s Act, it's the difference between using our military and using the FBI and CIA. Using the military provides a deterrent to other nations who might otherwise consider harboring terrorists or those terrorists attacking us again is it not?
Did we not consider this to be an act of war in the first place and not a crime?
Last edited by put it out there baby : 11-16-2009 at 05:30 PM.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchristie
What is it you're afraid of?
Come on DC I think I have been fairly clear on this. Are you doubting the sincerity of what I have said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchristie
Don't the American People have the right to hear what motivated the alleged masterminds of 911?
This is germain to the subject how?
Civilian Court is the only way to do this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchristie
Even the Nazis had their day in open court where all the World could judge the testimony for themselves.
Yes in a military tribunal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchristie
Are you afraid that if all the evidence is heard, you may not like what you hear?
This hadn't even crossed my mind. Is there something you think we will hear that we pretty much don't already know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchristie
Why are you so eager to abrogate The American People's right to be the arbiters of justice.
Didn't realize I was. So you think if the trial is a military tribunal that somehow the rights of the American people are abrogated? Would you be consistent and conduct all of the trials in civilian court or is partial abrogation O.K. with you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchristie
Why are you so eager to surrender to a military tribunal The American People's right to judge these individuals for themselves?
A Military tribunal is a just and fair way to handle this. It avoids all of the obvious pitfalls of a civilian trial that have been enumerated by myself and others on this thread. Frankly I don't know how an honest civilian court can even hear the evidence in this case. No miranda, dismiss. Held for an extended time with no formal charges, dismiss. No attorney provided, dismiss. There is no end to it.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
in the christian doctrine you can condemn what they did but not them!? vengeance is mine sayeth the lord of hosts!? of course, we are not a christain nation in PRACTICE so if they dont show convincing REMORSE, hang em high!? after all, we ARE the 'GREAT satan' by default, dont you agree!? why rock the boat!? it's worked up til now hasn't it!?
__________________
i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexx
in the christian doctrine you can condemn what they did but not them!? vengeance is mine sayeth the lord of hosts!? of course, we are not a christain nation in PRACTICE so if they dont show convincing REMORSE, hang em high!? after all, we ARE the 'great satan' by default, dont you agree!?
This has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. It is a matter of law, a matter of doing what is responsible, reasonable, correct and just. I would have thought that was obvious.
Do you actually believe that remorse of any kind (which they do not possess) would justify what they did and that they should be just "forgiven" and set free? Put the bong down before you post.
Last edited by put it out there baby : 11-16-2009 at 06:34 PM.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by put it out there baby
This has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. It is a matter of law, a matter of doing what is responsible, reasonable, correct and just. I would have thought that was obvious.
i did that to get the god/country/constitution BABOONS humiliated/RILED !? can you just picture a pack of riled monkeys in a cage/tree !? THE INCESSANT NOISE!? the blood curdling mayhem/confusion!? somebody hold the poor things down so they can get their life saving FLU SHOT!?
__________________
i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexx
i did that to get the god/country/constitution BABOONS humiliated/RILED !? can you just picture a pack of riled monkeys in a cage/tree !? THE INCESSANT NOISE!? the blood curdling mayhem/confusion!? somebody hold the poor things down so they can get their life saving FLU SHOT!?
You haven't riled anyone here that I can see. ROTFL! Sorry to disappoint you there.
looks around trying to find the "pack of riled monkeys" and finds nothing.
You have a problem with the Constitution?
Last edited by put it out there baby : 11-16-2009 at 06:51 PM.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexx
i did that to get the god/country/constitution BABOONS humiliated/RILED !? can you just picture a pack of riled monkeys in a cage/tree !? THE INCESSANT NOISE!? the blood curdling mayhem/confusion!? somebody hold the poor things down so they can get their life saving FLU SHOT!?
In other words you are just an internet troll with nothing to add to the conversation.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchristie
Let me pose a question in rejoinder to clarify your point. Do you believe the attacks on 911 were conducted as an act of war ?
.
I consider that act to be both an act of war and an act by terrorists. The people that carried out that attack are not a group from a specific country but rather a group that has declared war upon us and have attacked us.
I do not think that any country can be held responsible for that act. But in retospect I also think that those countries that give safe harbor and aid to those that do train for and commit those acts of terror are just as guilty as those that did it.
We do have the right to strike back against those that have attacked us, no matter where they are.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Timer
To some extent I do agree with you on this. America has over the last 15 to 20 years or so, lost the respect of the world and we have no one but ourselves to blame for it. We placed our faith in those that we elected and then failed to keep a careful watch on them. As the old saying goes, you are going to get exactly what you paid for. Well, were sure getting it now.
15 to 20 years? How so?
More likely the past 5 to 10 years!
.
__________________
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." - Alexander Pope - 1709.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Timer
I consider that act to be both an act of war and an act by terrorists. The people that carried out that attack are not a group from a specific country but rather a group that has declared war upon us and have attacked us.
I do not think that any country can be held responsible for that act. But in retospect I also think that those countries that give safe harbor and aid to those that do train for and commit those acts of terror are just as guilty as those that did it.
We do have the right to strike back against those that have attacked us, no matter where they are.
You have the right to kill innocent civilians because you believe the government of that country has harboured terrorists?
Do you honestly believe that?
.
__________________
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." - Alexander Pope - 1709.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazza.
You have the right to kill innocent civilians because you believe the government of that country has harboured terrorists?
Do you honestly believe that?
.
Seems to me that those terrorists did not care one bit about the thousands of innocent folks that they killed now does it. That was not a military target. Just innocent people trying to get on with their lives. And it is not just the govenment of those countries it is also a lot of people ther that did it to. And of course if it had happened to you then you would have never done any thing at all now would you. If you can't handle the fact that we not only had the resolve but had the balls to strike back then why not just back off. he australians don't have a perfect record in theifr history now do they, but you never seem to mention that.
Last edited by Old Timer : 11-17-2009 at 04:19 PM.
Re: obama Explains What He Will Do With the SKM Tr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Timer
Seems to me that those terrorists did not care one bit about the thousands of innocent folks that they killed no does it. That was not a military target. Just innocent people trying to get on with their lives. And it is not just the govenment of those countries it is also a lot of people ther that did it to. And of course if it had happened to you then you would have never done any thing at all now would you. If you can't handle the fact that we not only had the resolve but had the balls to strike back then why not just back off. he australians don't have a perfect record in theifr history now do they, but you never seem to mention that.
There lies the problem... All these Euros have the answers on how America should act...
...But it is like Charles Manson telling you he is disgusted with you and that you are not doing the right things.
,
,or
Linear Mode
